Any food that has corn, soy, or sugar that isn't listed as cane sugar, assume it has GMO ingredients unless it says Organic or non-GMO on the label. Because the GMOs are cheaper to produce. Also, I'd just flat out assume most organic soy or corn probably also contains some of the GMO genes, because pollens a promiscuous substance, and I'd be willing to be it has cross pollinated into the organic varieties by accident.

Some interests have latched on to GMO as a vehicle for anti-corporate control of food (good IMHO), anti-monoculture (again, good), and anti-Monsanto (also good imho).

And Fark Monsanto. Fark them fark them fark them.

Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.

I'm pissed because it is a good technology, and it's being abused by these companies, leaving a lot of good research languishing because they people freak out about GMO food.

well that sounds like a bunch of shiat. I guess its a hell of a lot cheaper to buy some congress critters into passing a law saying places can't pass laws than to convince voters your side is correct.

An optional ad that is consistent across products and has some FDA over sight isn't an awful idea, if the FDA and congress had any balls they'd tell these people they are keeping that but get farked on the banning states from passing their own legislation idea.

anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

GMO food doesn't scare me, all the preservatives, coloring, salt, corn syrup and other added chemicals do though. In fact GMO food is the next step in human innovation. Cheaper, more plentiful fresh food can only be a good thing for billions of humans.I say this as I dip french fries in ketchup and wash them down with surgary carmel colored soda.

meat0918:Rather than using this technology to improve nutrition profiles and improve resistance to disease, or speed up plant breeding, they've taken the route of making them resistant to herbicides and engineering pesticides (albeit ones that are also approved for Organic use, and shown to be harmless to people) into the food.

I'm not a big fan of the pesticide resistant stuff, but Monsanto has been working to make fruit/veggies through regular selective/cross breeding, albeit on a scale/rate that your average farmer couldn't dream of:http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/

Bomb Head Mohammed:anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield. There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.

Bomb Head Mohammed:anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material. So much so we put it EVERYWHERE. We had Tobacco executive straight-up lie to Congress (and everyone else) for years in order to make a buck off the premature deaths of millions.

Take one shot when people don't understand what GMO i- wait. Nevermind. You farks will die of alcohol poisoning and your moms will blame me.

Take one nineth a shot when someone whargarbls about Frankenfoods and killer tomatoes.One shot when someone realizes that most ANTI-GMO is actually Anti-corporatism or Anti-Monsanto.One shot when someone talks about GMOs causing human mutation.One shot when someone claims there's no regulation.Down the whole bottle if Pocket Ninja appears in the thread.And finally, take a shot when the post is made by a generally anti-science FARKer.

Anyone want to explain this GMO thing without talking shiat against the other side? As a person that hasn't really looked into to GMOs I left this thread learning almost nothing. No one laid out a good case for either side, just a bunch of shiat talk so far. Step your game up Farkers, I'm too lazy to wiki anything right now. This isn't some kind of abortion, weed, tax, gun, war, privacy, global warming,gay rights, civil rights, nuclear, free speech, states rights, religious, health care, etc debate, the GMO topic is much more obscure to the average person.

ltr77:Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer. GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses. https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.

Consumers irrationally hate GMOs. While there is ample reason for heavily regulating GMO and stringently reviewing each and every instance of products enter the environment and the foodchain for potential harm, there is nothing wrong in the concept per se.

For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you're pro-agribusiness or anti-science. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM foods, which is why I was happy to see the venerable journal Nature devote a special series of articles to the GM food controversy. You can download most of them for free , and they're well worth reading. The upshot: while GM crops haven't yet realized their initial promise and have been dominated by agribusiness, there is reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of sustainably feeding a growing planet.

Time Magazine: Modifying the Endless Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops

fusillade762:We'll start labeling them as long as you promise never to force us to start labeling them. Sounds legit.

It's actually happened in multiple industries. You know MPAA ratings? That's done voluntarily by movie makers in order to avoid having governments step in. Same with game ratings.

ltr77:Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield.

Huh? Many GMO crops actually require LESS chemical use - you have to use more herbicides, apply more pesticides, etc...

Prophet of Loss:Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material.

I once did a report on asbestos. Turns out they actually knew that it was bad news and safety regulations regarding it were spreading. Then WWII happened and 'MAXIMUM PRODUCTION AT ALL COSTS!!!!' happened, safety regulations were actually dropped then not restored to the same level after the war. The main risk is actually to the workers handling it, confined to walls and such it's safe. The expensive remediation projects of today are a bit like calling HAZMAT over a broken flourescent tube.

The problem with avoiding unknowns is that the additional expense adds up. GMO foods can do a lot of good. One thing to remember that all GMOs are not the same. You have 'golden rice', which produces vitamin A. You have 'roundup-ready' plants that won't die when exposed to roundup. There are ones that produce natural pesticides so farmers don't have to spray to control them, and due to the nature of said pesticides it's actually lower levels and less toxic to humans.

I'd argue that a 'GM/Non-GM' label is basically valueless from a health standpoint. Organic foods, as a class, are not demonstratably tastier*, healthier, or safer than quality non-organic. But they are more expensive.

ltr77:Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Increase in chemical use comes to mind as well, not to mention the reduction in yield. There is also an argument to be made that what GMO's have delivered (a reduction in the cost of labor associated with farming) is not necessarily a good thing in times of high unemployment.

Increase in "chemicals" is not an argument. You have to identify specific problems with increased chemicals. Though this will be hard since most GMOs are designed to work with less "chemicals"

Also, the yield is greater. The article that was published which claimed a lower yield was a gross misrepresentation of the original journal article: http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006 C7 630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Er, minimizing losses increases average yield, which is the important metric. To be sure, maximum yield under optimal conditions is important too, but average yields is much more a 'real world' consideration.

hardinparamedic:ltr77: Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer. GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses. https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.

I think the only anti-science one here is you, Sir.

GMO crops increase yields by both reducing losses and the amount of chemicals needed to support their growth.

At any rate, I think I'll trust MIT before I trust MotherJones.

Maybe you should read the report. It isn't Motherjones who did the research or published the study. It is a URL that has motherjones in the title. From your own link "For insect-resistant maize in the United States and herbi-cide-tolerant soybeans in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative (7-9)" It looks like they cite the same study you just disregarded.

Sounds like you are either anti-science or an ill informed consumer. GMO's do not increase yield, they minimize losses. https://www.motherjones.com/files/maize_prod_nat-biotech_2013.pdf They actually reduce yields.

AlanSmithee:abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.

GMO haters are the Left's version of Truthers.

Did you mean birthers? 9/11 conspiracies are prominent from almost all sides, liberals and left wingers included.

TheJoe03:Anyone want to explain this GMO thing without talking shiat against the other side? As a person that hasn't really looked into to GMOs I left this thread learning almost nothing. No one laid out a good case for either side, just a bunch of shiat talk so far. Step your game up Farkers, I'm too lazy to wiki anything right now. This isn't some kind of abortion, weed, tax, gun, war, privacy, global warming,gay rights, civil rights, nuclear, free speech, states rights, religious, health care, etc debate, the GMO topic is much more obscure to the average person.

Much like nearly all of the topics you listed, the whole GMO "issue" has one side--ignorant twits and ignorant folks who think they mean well--that is asinine and objectively wrong and one side that has at least a mild understanding of the topic and isn't affluent, anti-non-white people, and anti-science. So... not really. But if you want a short-ish summary, here you go.

BACKGROUND: This planet is not intrinsically welcoming to humans--potable water is something we have to, for the most part, generate for ourselves and all (removing outliers, if there are any) food humans grow has been heavily modified through decades or millenia of human manipulation and breeding. If you ever eat plants or plant-derived products, you can thank all the farmers since the beginning of agriculture.

PRO-GMO: Since we have the capability of altering the genetic material of living organisms (successfully, at least in plants and some animals), we can modify genes of plants to make them survive in harsher environments, require less intervention, produce additional essential human nutrients, etc. It's a bit of technology. There have been--and always will be, so long as competent scientists have any involvement--concerns about genetically modified plants cross-breeding with wild plants or, themselves, changing over time to any kind of detrimental effect, but, in the time GMO crops have been around (well over a decade) no such problem has actually been observed (which is good, although, obviously, should still be monitored).

ANTI-GMO: Whole Foods has big signs saying that GMOs are bad, therefore they must be. Technology is scary and new to me and therefore bad. ...some of the less ignorant among the anti-GMO crowd may, rightly, be concerned with the aforementioned possibility of wild plants crossing with GMOs to some sort of detrimental effect, but the solution to that problem isn't to not buy/ban GMOs (I might have a meteor strike me in the head and kill me if I go outside, but I'm still going to go outside and live my life), it's simply to continue monitoring our use of GMOs and/or promote additional screening or research.

...anti-GMO people are also heavily overlapping with people who think that "organic" produce is "better" (in any way) than traditionally grown food. And/or that "organic" means pesticides weren't used (for anyone unaware or willfully ignorant: that's not what "organic" food means--they were almost certainly sprayed with pesticides, and the pesticides used are not intrinsically better or safer for humans... although, iirc, they do tend to be less environmentally persistent, which is a nice thing).

MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.

AlanSmithee:abhorrent1: So are GMO haters also Vegan Anti-Vaxers? Cause it kinda seems like they would be. Since the ones screaming the loudest likely have no farking idea what they're talking about or even ehy.

GMO haters are the Left's version of Truthers.

"It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Capitalist works."

If GMO's are so safe why does the pro-GMO crowd insist on keeping their existence secret? If they are safe, what difference does it make it if needs to be properly labeled? How is it any differen than other labeling laws like requiring caloric and fat contents?

Let the consumer decide. If a consumer doesn't want to buy high sugar content crap, they can look at the label. If a person doesn't want to buy GMO's they can just check out the label.

If GMO's are in fact bad for you, history will show that Americans won't care and will buy it whether it's labeled or not as long as it's cheap and tastes good. Labeling laws have nothing to reduce the sales of overly processed junk food.

CowardlyLion:MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.

This is really what started the hatred of Monsanto and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with genetically modifying food if you improve it. However when you use that power to contrive business and create a monopoly, that's about the time you're deserving of the vitriol.

Bomb Head Mohammed:anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote: "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you. The brakes work fine. Trust me.

You'll have to: I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

Enlightened Liberal:I never did understand the mindset that "natural" is somehow superior or more desirable than something artificially created simply because it's "natural."

I think it's more along the lines of thought that nature didn't put such and such in there on its own, man did. That being said, I'm sure that crowd will all agree selective breeding is perfectly all right because nature is doing all the work (man merely helps in cross pollination), but genetically introducing something that wasn't in the plant/animal to begin with, or introducing a substance/gene that would never appear naturally (pigs with a glowy jellyfish gene anyone?) is what they'll rail on about. Especially if one of these "experiments" should somehow find its way into the wild and (uhh huh huh) start spreading its genes around.

Prophet of Loss:Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

Hoe about unknown unknowns? We used to think asbestos was an awesome building material. So much so we put it EVERYWHERE. We had Tobacco executive straight-up lie to Congress (and everyone else) for years in order to make a buck off the premature deaths of millions.

And now they say "trust us"? Fark you for being so damned gullible.

I concur, mostly, but actually, we knew perfectly well asbestos was dangerous. The ROMANS knew asbestos (rock wool, they called it) was dangerous; the slaves they made mine the stuff got brown lung. I give the old-school head of Johns-Manville props; back in the day, pre-WWII, he would stand ankle-deep in the stuff on his factory floor, right alongside his workers.

PunkTiger:I think it's more along the lines of thought that nature didn't put such and such in there on its own, man did. That being said, I'm sure that crowd will all agree selective breeding is perfectly all right because nature is doing all the work (man merely helps in cross pollination), but genetically introducing something that wasn't in the plant/animal to begin with, or introducing a substance/gene that would never appear naturally (pigs with a glowy jellyfish gene anyone?) is what they'll rail on about

These people are obviously unaware of lateral gene transfer. Yes, genes do jump accross species/genus/family/order/etc... all naturally.Science, biatch.

Jesus, I hate the phrase "Let the consumer decide!!!!!" Especially in the GMO argument. Consumers are morons.

My problem is that it is hard to explain to >95% of the US population the biochemistry underlying these modifications. The anti-GMO crowd uses scare tactics that aren't rooted in any kind of reality. As soon as you try to rationally explain the safety behind using bacteria and viruses as vectors for cloning and introducing genes into other organisms, their brains shut down, with visions of the monkey from "Outbreak" popping into their heads. The people running this anti-GMO sham of a movement have zero understanding of biochemistry and molecular biology.

It's the same argument used with creationism: "Let the children decide!!!!"

The problem in both cases is that the vast majority of consumers and children are idiots and need grown-ups to make educated decisions on their behalf. Decisions based on science and fact, not oversimplifications based on fiction.

PunGent:Bomb Head Mohammed: anti-GMO: we're highly intelligent progressive science minded people who by golly are against these frankenfoods and just as soon as we come up with a good intelligent, science minded reason to be against them we'll be sure to let you know. meanwhile, enjoy this thinly concealed anti-capitalist and anti-american screed!

/ the only semi-valid anti-gmo arguments i am aware of involve the potential loss of biodiversity. but that's actually not really an anti-gmo objection so much as it's against 'corporate farming' or whatever.

So you have no problem whatsoever with, and I quote: "before new GMO products go on the market, companies be required to submit safety data to be reviewed and approved by the FDA. Currently, that practice is optional."

I've got a car I'd like to sell you. The brakes work fine. Trust me.

You'll have to: I've paid Congress to make it illegal to ask a mechanic for a second opinion.

You're not anti-science are you? Good.

Buy the car.

And put your kids in it.

I've got some child seats to go with the car.

They've been tested by my same in-house lab.

They work fine too.

A more apt analogy would be;

I've got a car to sell you, these three mechanics have all verified that it is safe. I replaced the wheel lug nuts with some non OEM ones. They were more expensive but because these ones were easier to install it was more than worth it. A lot of parts on this car are aftermarket parts that I have installed over the years that I have owned it and BTW these particular aftermarket parts are vastly superior to the OEM parts. What? you don't like the Lugs? Because I used an air wrench to install them instead of a hand tool? Are you stupid?

MayoSlather:CowardlyLion: MONSANTO: Generally has farking abhorrent business practices. They produce and sell seeds for crops that are resistant to their herbicide(s?), promoting the heavy use of their product to kill off any/all invading plants, etc. It's more complicated, but not really relevant to a discussion purely about GMOs.

This is really what started the hatred of Monsanto and rightfully so. There's nothing wrong with genetically modifying food if you improve it. However when you use that power to contrive business and create a monopoly, that's about the time you're deserving of the vitriol.

Bingo

The message is lost in the noise.

As a species, Homo Sapien has been "GMOing" for thousands of years by influencing the evolutionary process. There is little difference in what happens today. It's just on a bigger scale.

The up side is increased yields to feed a hungry world. It's a matter of opinion that the down side out weighs it. The danger of mono culture, increased reliance on pesticides, and the horror of a single monolithic corporation controlling food production for a start.